Conclusions

He five mastabas which were tested at Abu Rawash, of which four are scrutinised here for their structure, all combine two or three of the structural means which could be mobilised to counter gravity, namely enclosing, partitioning and stratification. A variety of solutions could be adopted for each of them.

Stratification for example, can be obtained through the simple accumulation of loose material in separate strata (M9, possibly F48), but also with layers of small stones interspersed with levels of limestone chips (F40), or even ‘pavements’ of irregular stone slabs (F37, a unique example to the best of our knowledge).

Partitioning is only found at F37 and seems an isolated practice, possibly connected to its imposing mass. his conclusion may not be correct however, because similar cases are reported elsewhere,74 however poorly recorded, if at all.75 his practice is somewhat reminiscent of the

Fig. 9: A portion of the accretion wall of mastaba M9, showing two levels of coating

First dynasty way of building large mud-brick tombs in a chequered pattern, although in this last case the construction is very regular and not fully dedicated to the stability of the building, since some of the rooms are functional. he present example of F37 underlines however that old practice is never entirely forgotten.

Lastly, our sample also demonstrates that enclosing can be obtained by up to three successive ‘walls’, namely an embankment of the core and one or two accretions (casing included), all rarely built the same way. he discovery of examples of three belt structures is an important key to relate mastaba construction to that of the pyramids, insofar as these are built in accretion layers around a central nucleus. Even if the core is high in the latter case and low for

Where a similar pattern could be sketchily recorded on the surfacing level of the core.

The mastabas, the structural identity is striking and further supports the identification of the peripheral envelopes of the private tombs as ‘accretions’, which they indeed are. One may also wonder if, like the pyramids and the first royal tumuli of the Early Dynastic period, structural principles do not also relate to symbolic meaning. In this case, it could be the symbolism of the double mound, one hidden, the other visible, as a means of resurrection.76